High Oak Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

We found that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff worked together and collaboratively with other services to make sure people could access other services easily.

Patients received care and treatment that supported them to live healthier lives including being supported to undertake national screening programmes and vaccinations. Patients who required monitoring underwent regular checks on their health.

Multi-disciplinary meetings were held where the needs of patients with complex conditions or those approaching the end of life could be discussed, reviewed and planned for. The supporting documents and alerts where people had undergone an assessment for ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR) were available on the patient record system.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice, and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

There were flags on patients records who were vulnerable and required ongoing monitoring and recalls in place to review patients and educate them to manage their health needs. There was regular engagement with community services and referral pathways in place. The practice website detailed information and links for health promotion, health conditions and common health questions.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

Staff actively signposted patients to local support services offering information, education, and tailored advice based on individual needs. Patients were encouraged to participate in national health initiatives, such as cancer screening programmes and childhood immunisations.

The latest GP Patient Survey carried out, showed that 88% of respondents felt their needs had been met during their last general practice appointment which was in line with the local average and slightly below the national average of 90%.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it; however, the practice was not meeting all national targets for screening and immunisations

Cervical screening uptake at the practice was 76% in 24-49 year olds and 71% in 50-64 year olds, which was below the national target of 80%. In addition, national data showed that 2 out of 5 indicators for childhood immunisations fell short of the World Health Organisation’s minimum threshold of 90%. The provider continued to review performance to identify ways to improve uptake. There was a clear system of follow up for those patients who did not attend.

The practice had an established programme of clinical and non-clinical audits aimed at driving continuous improvement in patient care and operational efficiency. This included audits such as direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), dual antiplatelets, Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs), safeguarding and clinical coding audit.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. There were policies and procedures in place such as mental capacity and best interest meeting. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation. The provider carried out mortality audits each month to identify areas for improvement.

We saw evidence that consent was obtained for patients so that they understand their rights around consent to the care and treatment they are offered.

The national GP patient survey demonstrated that 92% of patients were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. This was higher than the local average of 90% and the national average of 91%.